THE TOO-HIGH COST OF NUCLEAR ENERGY

Nuclear power’s new debate: cost; Issues of safety and waste make way for a focus on funding.
Mark Clayton, August 13, 2009 (Christian Science Monitor)
and
The bumpy road to nuclear energy; Of the 182 construction permits granted by government commissions, 50 were abandoned in construction with billions in investment lost and 28 were closed before their 40-year licenses expired.
Mark Clayton, August 13, 2009 (Christian Science Monitor)

SUMMARY
Though proponents of nuclear energy continue to herald a coming “renaissance” for the industry, no new plants have been commissioned for 3 decades. While the serious questions of nuclear waste disposal, radioactive spillage and leakage, weapons proliferation dangers, and terrorist target vulnerability remain unanswered, the biggest obstacle to the building of new nuclear facilities is now cost. Construction of a nuclear plant can take 5-to-10 years or longer and tie up billions of unproductive dollars.

Advocates in Congress want to break the logjam blocking 21 proposed projects by providing federal loan guarantees. House Republicans want to add 100 new U.S. reactors to the energy and climate legislation. A Senate plan, approved in June by the Democrat-headed Energy and Natural Resources Committee, calls for a $700 billion, 20-year construction program that will be backed by federal loan guarantees.

Opponents of nuclear energy vehemently doubt the economic viability and safety of the plans.

From the Christian Science Monitor. (click to enlarge)

COMMENTARY
It is simply amazing that people who express desperate concerns about spending to improve U.S. health care seem unconcerned with gargantuan spending for nuclear energy. Nuclear energy has a clear track record. It is a risky undertaking and awaits only a bad day to become a national or international nightmare. At least metrics show spending on health insurance reform will provide better care for more people to the benefit of everybody. Statistics pretty much prove taxpayers can expect little more from spending on nuclear energy than debt.

Another interesting contradiction: The people most dubious of providing bailout money to Wall Street are strong proponents of guaranteeing investments in new nuclear facilities. They oppose bailing out Wall Street to save the U.S. economy but would be happy to risk taxpayer money to back Wall Street investments in nuclear energy. One serious nuclear incident caused by human error, terrorist intent or equipment failure could cost taxpayers more than last year’s financial meltdown. Meltdown, in fact, is a term coined to describe a nuclear disaster. If it can happen to Wall Street’s “smartest guys in the room” it can surely happen to a nuclear plant's highly varied team of physicists, engineers, mid-level managers, blue collar workers and security guards, all of whom play crucial roles in a nuclear reactor’s safe operation.

Nuclear advocates say nuclear plants are safe but the truth is they are just a bad day away from a catastrophe. (click to enlarge)

No new nuclear facility has been built in the U.S. for more than 3 decades because no new nuclear facility has shown it is both safe and can secure financing without a federal loan guarantee. The existing U.S. fleet of 104 nuclear plants, which now provide 20.5% of U.S. power, sucked up $178 billion in public subsidies betweeen 1947 and 1999. In 2006 dollars, the nuclear industry cost taxpayers $300 billion in the 1970s and 1980s.

Building a certifiable nuclear facility is extremely difficult. The biggest taxpayer costs come when construction cannot be completed, leading to loan defaults. That happens, according to the Government Accountability Office, with half of all proposed plants. The Congressional Budget Office says the massive plans of House and Senate Republicans will increase that 50% rate of default, putting $360 billion to $1.6 trillion in taxpayer money at risk. One expert says it will lead to a “Fannie Mae in spades…” and another says it is “an intolerable level of risk for taxpayers…”

Nuclear advocates say no power source but nuclear will serve the nation's needs but it is going to take a LOT more than nuclear to meet U.S. needs. (click to enlarge)

In 1974, 253 reactors were ordered by the US power generating industry. 71 were canceled before construction began. Of the 182 construction permits granted, 50 were abandoned in construction with billions in investment lost. 28 were closed before their 40-year licenses expired – including Unit 2 at Three Mile Island.

From the Christian Science Monitor. (click to enlarge)

How much tax payer money would be at risk? Only $18.5 billion in loan guarantees have been authorized for nuclear, but the U.S. Department of Energy received applications for $122 billion for the 21 proposed projects.

Financially speaking, the biggest travesty of nuclear energy’s “renaissance” is that it is a gross misuse of funding. Wind costs 2/3 what nuclear costs and ties up the money for a much shorter time before generating returns. Wall Street showed little interest in nuclear investing when it had money. Moody’s Investor Service recently described investing in new nuclear as a “bet the farm” risk.

click to enlarge

It’s a pretty obvious point: Insurance companies know risk. If a movie star’s legs are safe to insure, an insurance company will leap at the opportunity to earn the premiums. If insurance companies won’t take on nuclear energy, there is only ONE reason: The risk is too great. If it’s too big a risk for AIG, why would it be suitable for the taxpayer?

The nuclear industry says it has the excess costs and construction problems under control. It says the only reason it needs federal loan guarantees is because of the financial downturn. Here’s the thing: The economy’s crash is slowing and the credit crunch is easing. The news is filled with stories about financing returning to wind and solar and geothermal. Nuclear? Not so much.

Investment bank Credit Suisse says wind, geothermal and efficiency are the best energy buys. (click to enlarge)

Why? The nuclear industry’s own data shows the estimated cost of building a new nuclear power plant have more than tripled in the past five years.

Construction delays are still one of the biggest problems. Current projects under way in Finland and France are significantly behind schedule and over budget and energy producers in those countries have more recent experience at building nuclear plants than do the U.S. companies now asking for federal loan guarantees. A 2008 Moody’s estimate for new nuclear power was $7,000 per kilowatt. Recent studies have shown the new New Energy (and natural gas) installations to be much better buys.

Old Energy advocates like Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), who recently called for $700 billion in federal funding to double the number of U.S. nuclear plants, remain enamored of nuclear energy and “clean” coal because they do not understand how much more viable New Energy is. They will, however, understand the problem of cost. Viability begins with cost. Old Energy's staunch, recalcitrant die-hards cannot deny the numbers.

click to enlarge

Ratepayers certainly will not ignore the numbers. Customers of the New Hampshire Electric Cooperative remain bitterly aware of the ~$6/month surcharge they continue to pay for a 2% investment the Coop made 30 years ago in a nuclear facility that never got built. Ratepayers, politicians like Senator Alexander must remember, are voters.

Footnote: So-called “clean” coal faces a very similar problem to that of nuclear energy. No insurer or power producer will take responsibility for the sites where captured emissions are to be stored without liability relief from the federal government. If they won’t take financial responsibility for the safety of the sites they construct to sequester the captured emissions, how safe can the sites be?

What to watch out for: Congressional conservatives are making plans to fund a semi-autonomous “clean energy bank.” Nuclear and “clean” coal advocates have so far prevented such a bank’s advance legislatively by insisting there be NO cap on how much any individual energy can be loaned. Talk about a vulgar money-grab. They want to put the power to hand out almost an unlimited amount of loan guarantees to a handful of federally appointed bankers.

Nothing ties up capital like new nuclear plants - except maybe "clean" coal. (click to enlarge)

QUOTES
- Michele Boyd, head of the safe-energy program, Physicians for Social Responsibility: “The Senate energy committee has passed legislation that could provide unlimited loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors …”
- Doug Koplow, president, energy consultant Earth Track: “Despite industry efforts to frame nuclear energy as the cheapest option, the reality is that nuclear power’s very survival has required large and continuous government support…”
- Dr. Mark Cooper, senior fellow, Vermont Law School Institute for Energy and the Environment: “You want to talk about bailouts – the next generation of new nuclear power would be Fannie Mae in spades…”
- Peter Bradford, former member, Nuclear Regulatory Commission/former chair, New York State Public Service Commission: “Funding nuclear power on anything like the scale of 100 plants over the next 20 years would involve an intolerable level of risk for taxpayers because that level of new nuclear reactors would require just massive federal loan guarantees…”
- Ellen Vancko, Nuclear Energy and Climate Change Project coordinator, Union of Concerned Scientists: “The nuclear power industry may be correct about wanting those guarantees, but at what risk to US taxpayers? … The industry assures everyone there is no risk – and some believe them.”
- Michael Wallace, vice chairman, Constellation Energy: “We’re poised to commence early site preparation this year for the first new nuclear plant in the US in 30 years, but to be clear, we cannot move forward without federal loan guarantees…”
- Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn), unveiling a $700 billion plan to almost double the number of U.S. reactors: “Let’s take another long, hard look at nuclear power…It is already far and away our best defense against global warming. So why not build 100 new nuclear power plants in 20 years?”
- Boyd, Physicians for Social Responsibility: “The big story here is that nine unelected people [could get] unlimited authority to hand out these loan guarantees…That’s the big issue here.”